New Zealand Stakeholder Consultation Forum

AustraliaNew Zealand Food Regulation System

Report of the

2010 New Zealand Stakeholder Consultation Forum

Wellington

22 June 2010

A.Introduction

On 22 June 2010 the second New Zealand Joint Food Regulation Stakeholder Consultation forum was held in Wellington. The Food Regulation Standing Committee hosted a similar stakeholder forum in Australia on 18June 2010.

Invitations to the New Zealand forum were sent to stakeholders on the New Zealand Food Safety Authority (NZFSA) database. Approximately 40 people attended the forum from a wide and diverse range of industry, consumer, public health and government bodies. A full list of attendees is in AttachmentA.

The forum was facilitated by Jennifer Parker, of Parker Duignan Consulting. It opened with a brief overview of the joint food regulation system, a description of the strategy setting process of the Food Regulation Standing Committee and current strategic priorities, followed by insights into implementation approaches by the Committee. The forum considered a number of emerging policy issues within the joint system and there was a summary of the work around the amalgamation of consumer law in New Zealand as relevant to the joint system and food standards. Stakeholders then provided feedback on joint food system issues and their experience of the joint system.

The focus of the forum was to share information, provide an update on specific developments, foster views on issues covered and elicit other issues of interest concerning the joint food regulation system. Issues identified were not explored in detail nor was there any attempt to reach consensus on particular issues.

B.Overview of policy, strategy and implementation in the joint Australia New Zealand food regulation system

This part of the Forum covered three aspects:

• setting policy in the joint system
• strategic priorities of the joint system
• supporting consistent implementation across the system.

Carole Inkster, Director of Policy, NZFSA, provided a brief overview of the joint Australia New Zealand food regulation system, and New Zealand’s role in it. This covered the policy development process within the joint system, the generation of Ministerial policy guidelines and then described the standards setting process.

Carole Inkster delivered a presentation on behalf of Craig Sahlin, Deputy Director General, NSW Food Authority and Chair of the Food Regulation Standing Committee’s (FRSC’s) Strategy Group. This described the:

• development of the FRSC strategic plan
• feedback from the 2008 Stakeholder Forums
• structure and content of the current Strategic Plan for 2010-2015
• key activities for 2010-11 designed to deliver on strategic priorities.

Glen Neal, Assistant Director, Standards Group, NZFSA, then delivered a presentation on behalf of Dr Ann Astin, Chief Executive, Dairy Food Safety Victoria and Chair of the FRSC Implementation Sub Committee. The Sub Committee’s objectives were described together with its recent achievements. Glen went on to outline the work programme including a toolkit for consistent implementation and implementation planning for new standards.

Stakeholders were invited to provide comment or questions.

Questions and comments raised included:

B1What is the progress on the Australian Food Labelling Review – specifically when the report will be available and is there going to be another round of consultation? Some members expressed interest in a further meeting with the Review panel.

The Review panel is currently working on a draft report which will be available for a further round of consultation.[1] The final report of the Review panel will be provided to the Australia and New Zealand Food Regulation Ministerial Council in December 2010.

B2Is the Australian sprout standard consistent with the one in New Zealand?

There is currently no specific standard for sprouts in New Zealand. Sprouts are covered by the general provisions of the Food Act 1981. NZFSA is considering development of a sprout standard under the Food Bill.

B3How do we make comment on a New Zealand sprout standard?

There will be detailed consultation on the proposed standard as with the development of any new standard.

C.Update on the amalgamation of New Zealand’s consumer law relevant to joint food standards

Roger Palairet, consultant to, and Project Leader for, the Ministry of Consumer Affairs outlined the review and amalgamation of New Zealand’s consumer law currently underway. The interface between food law and consumer law is an important feature of the New Zealand food regime generally, including the joint food standards component.

The Consumer Law Reform project aims to deliver a simplification and consolidation of existing law, and to achieve harmonisation with Australian consumer law, where possible. While the project covers a wide area of reform, Roger focused on those areas of particular interest for stakeholders in the food regulation system. This included an overview of proposals on the following topics that are currently being consulted on:

• substantiation (offence not to substantiate a claim after a Notice is served)
• provisions for product safety
• consumer information – information-based framework
• accuracy of weights and measures, and
• enhanced enforcement powers.

Stakeholders had the following questions.

C1In respect to changing the threshold to ‘goods where it is reasonably foreseeable that they will or may cause injury’, would this include situations where a food is likely to cause allergies, such as peanuts?

In principle there could be a product safety standard on allergenetic products but Consumers Affairs would refer such an issue to NZFSA. Nonetheless, there is no legal reason for not having a product safety standard on allergenetic products.

C2You have discussed the high level principles that would be included in new legislation [such as meeting consumers’ reasonable expectations, access to redress and consumers and suppliers have confidence in market rules]. If the Consumer Guarantees Act hadsuch high level principleswould you not need a higher quality of food labelling? One could have difficulty arguing that there is actually a risk. From a consumers’ point of view it would make it more difficult as people would not know where they were.

The Consumer Guarantees Act does not include provisions for information type requirements. Substantiation [which is an information type requirement] would be included in the Fair Trading Act and information standards.

C3The Fair Trading Act priorities include consumer welfare as a priority. Is public safety part of this priority?

There are currently only six standards going to public safety and these are primarily focussed on child safety covering, for example, baby walkers.

D.Food Regulation and Public Health

Jenny Reid, Deputy Director, NZFSA Science Group and Margaret Brooker, Senior Manager (Labelling), NZFSA Science Group,outlined how addressing public health concerns are becoming an increasingly important policy consideration in the joint food regulation system. They did this using two examples:

•food labelling and health promotion, and

•the regulation and labelling of alcoholic beverages.

Margaret discussed the comprehensive review of food labelling law and policy (the Review) that is being undertaken by the Australia and New Zealand Food Regulation Ministerial Council. The Terms of Reference for the Review includes reducing regulatory burden and the need for an evidence based approach. The Review panel visited New Zealand in March this year. It has paid particular attention to the possible role of food labelling in health promotion and the policy considerations involved in the regulation and labelling of alcoholic beverages.

Questions included:

D1 Do you have any feedback from submitters on the Australian Food Labelling Review as to whether alcohol should continue to be treated as a food or not?

Some people who attended the consultation sessions had strong views for and against alcohol labelling but there was no indication from the Review panel on its position.

D2With regard to the Terms of Reference of theReview, it was stated that the Review was about reducing regulatory cost and preserving public health. The discussion at the consultations seemed to focus on what we could add to labels rather than what could be removed. Have the written submissions changed the focus of Review and extended it?

The scope of the Review was set by the Australia and New Zealand Food Regulation Ministerial Council and cannot be extended. The focus may well change but this will only be evident with the publication of the draft report[2].

E.Energy shots and caffeine products

Ursula Egan, Senior Adviser, NZFSA Science Group, presented a summary of the risk profile on caffeine in energy drinks and energy shots that NZFSA had commissioned from the Environmental Science and Research Institute (ESR).

Ursula discussed how the risk profile indicated that, in a theoretical model, the temporary adverse effects can occur in some people if they consume about 3.5 mg of caffeine per kilogram of body weight a day, which most adults would exceed if they had two single shot lattés or four cups of tea. The report found there was no evidence of long-term harm in the general healthy adult population from caffeine consumption up to 400 mg per day. It was found children and teenagers get caffeine from tea, kola drinks and coffee, and if they consume too much they could have effects like dizziness, rapid heartbeat, irritability, anxiety, tremors and insomnia.

The risk profile has been shared with trans-Tasman food standards-setter Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ).

Stakeholders had the following questions:

E1Are energy shots considered a supplementary food or dietary supplement?

Energy shots are defined as a food not a medicine as they do not have a therapeutic purpose. Such food-type supplements are regulated under the Supplemented Food Standard.

E2DidESR look at whether or not sugar or milk was included with caffeine and if so which was worse?

ESR only looked at the caffeine in these products. No other ingredients were considered.

E3Were there any therapeutic claims made?

No therapeutic claims were evident on the energy shot cans.

F.Key issues identified by Stakeholders

Stakeholders identified the following issues for acknowledgement and response within the joint food regulation system.

F1It is important to acknowledge that food processing has relevance to food allergies in two ways:

1. The way we process food increases the allergen risk to the general public.
2. Food processing contributes to increasing food allergies (for example the addition of cow’s milk protein in water).

F2There is an increasing market for gluten free products. Theimplication is that gluten free is good for you but in fact some diseases can be caused by having insufficient gluten. This may emerge as an issue in the future.

F3To what extent are we following decisions/standards etc set by the Europeans with regard to labelling and nutrition?

F4Does the allergenic threshold increase or decrease in purified food?

F5Why is alcohol still considered a food – even though it is excluded from the requirement to list ingredients? Industry selectively lists ingredients and nutrients on alcohol in a way that can be potentially misleading to consumers.

F6If a food product is labelled ‘genetically modified’ one is not sure whether or not the genetically modified ingredient is approved under the joint system. The Code should require that the label shows if it is regulated.

F7There is a lack of diagnostic tools to detect genetic modification so there may be a lot of diseases that emerge as a result.

F8The discussion around ‘front of pack’ labelling tends to focus on traffic light labelling but the focus should be on interpretive and noninterpretive labelling.

F9What sort of cost-benefit analysis is conducted on various sorts of front of pack labelling schemes and what sort of data has come out of this?

F10How do both regulators and industry satisfy consumer concern with imported foods and country of origin labelling? For industry, there is a cost involved.

Suggestions for improvement included:

a)Better/improved timeliness of standard development such as alcohol labelling and the nutrition, health and related claims standard. Among other things, this was seen to impose a high cost on industry.

b)Prioritising food standards: for example some safety, some quality, and some that are of benefit commercially.

c)Comment was made that it is sometimes difficult to interpret existing standards. Some standards could benefit from clarification.

d)Resources for enforcement need to be matched to the resources for development of standards.

e)Need to close thegap between the monitoring and enforcement of New Zealand standards on imported foods.

Consumer law issues

F12Concerning the substantiation of marketing claims, who would be responsible for substantiation – the producer or seller? What is the standard of evidence for substantiation?

F13When considering consumer law reform, to what extent is this being looked at from communities who are socially deprived?

F14The term ‘good faith’ is an issue as proposed for use in the draft legislation. Good faith could be used to mean ‘good enough’ and consumer’s protection rights could then be breached.

G.NZFSA/MAF amalgamation update

Carole Inkster provided an update on the NZFSA/MAF amalgamation.

On 1 July, NZFSA and Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry will amalgamate as a single legal entity. This is the first step in creating a fully integrated organisation that is focused on supporting the integrity and performance of New Zealand’s biological value chain, covering all animal and plant products, food and food-related products (including agricultural compounds and veterinary medicines) and all aspects from primary production to final use or consumption.

Carole explained that the amalgamation is a two-phase operation. Initially NZFSA will clip on to MAF. A high level design for the integrated organisation is due for completion shortly. The second phase would focus on the detailed restructure and on all elements of staffing that such a restructure requires. It was acknowledged that stakeholders needed to be kept aware of the changes.

H.Next steps

The final draft of this report will be provided to the Ministerial Council for its consideration together with the report of the Australian stakeholder forum.

Attachment A - List of attendees

External Attendees

First Name / Surname / Organisation
Mark / Bell / Progressive Enterprises
Jeff / Blackburn / Blackburn Croft & Co. Ltd.
Clarie / Bleakley / GE Free NZ
Steffan / Browning / Soil & Health Australasia
Nicola / Chilcott / Agencies for Nutrition Action
Thomas / Chin / Distilled Spirits Association
Alison / Cossar / Ministry of Consumer Affairs
Anny / Dentener / Adecron
Wendy / Dodunski / Dietitians NZ
Barry / Hellberg / Retailers Association
Leigh / Henderson / FSANZ
Melissa / Hodd / Foodstuffs
Penny / Jorgensen / Allergy NZ
Grant / Kime / Safe Foods (for Demon Drinks)
Maurine / Kime / Safe Food Solutions
Jennie / Langley / Brewers Association of Australia and New Zealand
Stephen / Leatherland / Fonterra
Kristen / Maynard / ALAC
Andrea / McDonald / NZICMA
Simon / McLennan / Red Bull
Melanie / McPherson / Nutricia
Mark / Noble / Spotless
Sue / Pollard / New Zealand Nutrition Foundation
Katherine / Rich / New Zealand Food and Grocery Council
Barry (Gus) / Rieper / Clubs New Zealand Incorporated
Bruce / Robertson / Hospitality Association of New Zealand
Cathy / Webb / Seafood Industry Council
Facilitator
Jennifer / Parker / Parker Duignan Consulting
NZFSA Attendees
Mary / Western / Export Standards
Lisa / Ralph / Policy
Cathy / Corbett / Policy
Presenters
Carole / Inkster / Director, Policy, NZFSA
Ursula / Egan / Science, NZFSA
Glen / Neal / Standards, NZFSA
Jenny / Reid / Science, NZFSA
Margaret / Brooker / Science, NZFSA
Roger / Palairet / Ministry of Consumer Affairs

1

[1]Stakeholders were advised that a draft report would likely be released for consultation in late 2010. However, the panel has since advised that an additional round of consultation will not be undertaken.

[2]Stakeholders were advised that a draft report would likely be released for consultation in late 2010. However, the panel has since advised that an additional round of consultation will not be undertaken.